[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjwQ4dLH7BWOqZqr@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 23:34:09 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] getvalues(2) prototype
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 06:19:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I'm still a bit puzzled about the reason for getvalues(2) beyond,
> "reduce the number of system calls". Is this a performance argument?
> If so, have you benchmarked lsof using this new interface?
Yeah. Even if open + read + close is a bnottle neck for fuse or
network file systems I think a io_uring op for just that is a much
better choice instead of this crazy multi-value operation.
And even on that I need to be sold first.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists